Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:12:04.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Humanization of Humanitarian Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Theodor Meron
Theodor Meron*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The centennial of the Hague Convention (No. II; No. IV in the 1907 version) on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the fiftieth anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of August 12, 1949, present an opportunity to reflect on the direction in which the law of war, or international humanitarian law, has been evolving. This essay focuses on the humanization of that law, a process driven to a large extent by human rights and the principles of humanity. As the subject is vast, major issues must inevitably be left out of my discussion, including the impact of the prohibitions on unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate warfare on the regulation of weapons, the proscription of antipersonnel land mines and blinding laser weapons, and the progression of international humanitarian law from largely protecting noncombatants to protecting combatants as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 239 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Robert J. Mathews & Timothy L. H. McCormack, The Influence of Humanitarian Principles in the Negotiation of Arms Control Treaties, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 834, June 1999, at 331. The prohibitions adopted in 1995 in the new Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons to the Convention on Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects resulted from concerns about the proliferation of weapons and effectively defending against them, and included a particularly strong humanitarian element. Id. at 348. For the Protocol, Oct. 13, 1995, see 35 ILM 1218 (1996).

2 See Mathews & McCormack, supra note 1, at 350. For the Ottawa treaty, see Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, Sept. 18, 1997, 36 ILM 1507 (1997).

3 An important example of an enlightened interpretation of Geneva Convention [No. IV] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. IV], has been to consider rape as torture or inhuman treatment and thus as a grave breach under Article 147. See Theodor Meron, Rape as a Crime under International Humanitarian Law, 87 AJIL 424 (1993).

4 Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/8052, at 104 (1970).

5 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, para. 105 (2) (E) (July 8) [hereinafter Nuclear Weapons]; see also Michael J. Matheson, The Twelfth Waldemar A. Solf Lecture in International Law, Mil. L. Rev., No. 161, Sept. 1999, at 181, 194–95. See generally International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons (Laurence Boisson de Chazournes & Philippe Sands eds., 1999).

6 See In re Altstötter, 6 Law Reports of Trials of Major War Criminals 1 (1948).

7 U.S. War Dep’t, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders No. 100 (Apr. 24, 1863), Art. 29 [hereinafter Lieber Code], reprinted in The Laws of Armed Conflicts 3 (Dietrich Schindler & Jiří Toman eds., 3d rev. ed. 1988) [hereinafter Armed Conflicts].

8 Oscar Schachter, United Nations Law in the Gulf Conflict, 85 AJIL 452, 460 (1991).

9 Nuclear Weapons, supra note 5, paras. 41–42.

10 See International Committee of the Red Cross, The SIRUS Project 14 (Robin M. Coupland ed., 1997); see also Henri Meyrovitz, The Principle of Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 299, Mar.–Apr. 1994, at 98, 118; Robin M. Coupland & Peter Herby, Review of the Legality of Weapons: A New Approach, id., NO. 835, Sept. 1999, at 583; Declaration of the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, para. 21 (1999) (indicating that states and the ICRC may engage in consultations to analyze the extent to which the SIRUS project may assist states) <> (visited Feb. 2, 2000).

11 See generally Theodor Meron, Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws (1993); Theodor Meron, Bloody Constraint: War and Chivalry in Shakespeare (1998).

12 See Theodor Meron, Human Rights in Internal Strife: Their International Protection 11 (1987).

13 Georges Abi-Saab, International Criminal Tribunals and the Development of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, in Liber Amicorum Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui 649, 650 (Emile Yakpo & Tahar Boumedra eds., 1999).

14 Convention [No. IV] on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, with annex of regulations, Oct. 18, 1907, pmbl., 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631 [hereinafter Hague Convention No. IV].

15 The first Geneva Convention was the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, Aug. 22, 1864, 18 Martens Nouveau Recueil (le sér.) 612, translated and reprinted in Armed Conflicts, supra note 7, at 279.

16 See Theodor Meron, The Normative Impact on International Law of the International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, in War Crimes Law Comes of Age, ch. 12 (1998).

17 George Aldrich, Individuals as Subjects of International Humanitarian Law, in Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21ST Century: Essays in Honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski 851, 853 (Jerzy Makarczyk ed., 1996) [hereinafter SKubiszewski Essays].

18 See Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, ch. 1 (1989) [hereinafter Meron, Customary Law]; see also Theodor Meron, The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law, 90 AJIL 238 (1996), reprinted in Meron, supra note 16, ch. 14 [hereinafter Meron, Role of Custom]; Oscar Schachter, New Custom, Power, and Contrary Practice, in Skubiszewski Essays, supra note 17, at 531, 539.

19 See Meron, supra note 16, ch. 17, Epilogue.

20 See Meron, Customary Law, supra note 18, at 56–57.

21 See Meron, Role of Custom, supra note 18, at 262.

22 Supra note 7. For analysis, see Theodor Meron, Francis Lieber Code and Principles of Humanity, 36 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 269 (1997–98), reprinted in Meron, supra note 16, at 131.

23 See Lieber Code, supra note 7, Art. 47. See generally Meron, supra note 3.

24 See Lieber Code, supra note 7, Art. 43.

25 See id., Arts. 57–58.

26 Compare Article 16 of Geneva Convention [No. III] Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. III], on equality of treatment.

27 Lieber Code, supra note 7, Art. 23.

28 See Theodor Meron, The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience, 94 AJIL 78 (2000). For the Martens clause, see, e.g., Hague Convention No. IV, supranote 14, pmbl.

29 See Hersch Lauterpacht, The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War, 1952–1953 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 360, 381–82; Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 3; Hague Convention No. IV, supra note 14.

30 ICRC, Commentary on the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 12 (Oscar M. Uhler & Henri Coursier eds., 1958) [hereinafter Convention IV Commentary].

31 See Joyce A. Gutteridge, The Geneva Conventions of 1949, 1949 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 294, 300.

32 See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 114 (June 27).

33 See Louise Doswald-Beck, Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Future Wars, 52 Naval War C. Rev. 24, 32–33 (1998).

34 Georges Abi-Saab, The Specificities of Humanitarian Law, in Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian LAW AND Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet 265, 269 (Christophe Swinarski ed., 1984) [hereinafter Pictet Essays].

35 ICRC, Commentary on the Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field 84 (Jean S. Pictet ed., 1952) [hereinafter Convention I Commentary]. For the text of the Convention, Aug. 12, 1949, see 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. I].

36 See, e.g., Case 11.137, Abella v. Argentina, Inter-Am. C.H.R., paras. 158–61, OEA/Ser.L/V.97, doc. 38 (1997).

37 See Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/7720 (1969). For the 1970 report, see supra note 4.

38 See, e.g., Hague Convention No. IV, supra note 14, Art. 2 (stating: “The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.”). See also Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, July 6, 1906, 35 Stat. 1885, reprinted in Armed Conflicts, supra note 7, at 301, Art. 24 (stating: “The provisions of the present Convention are obligatory only on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them. The said provisions shall cease to be obligatory if one of the belligerent Powers should not be signatory to the Convention.”).

39 Trial of German Major War Criminals, 1946, Cmd. 6964, Misc. No. 12, at 65, quoted in Meron, Customary Law, supra note 18, at 38–39. The Nuremberg tribunals followed a similar approach with regard to the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, infra note 41. See Meron, supra, at 39–40.

40 United States V. Von Leeb, 11 Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, at 462 (1950).

41 Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, July 27, 1929, Art. 82,47 Stat. 2021, 118 LNTS 343 [hereinafter 1929 POW Convention]; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, July 27, 1929, Art. 25, 47 Stat. 2074, 118 LNTS 303.

42 See Convention I Commentary, supra note 35, at 30.

43 See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra note 32, at 114.

44 Emphasis added. See Abi-Saab, supra note 34, at 267. For an important discussion, see Luigi Condorelli & Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Quelques Remarques à propos de l’obligation des Etats de “respecter et faire respecter” le droit international humanitaire” en toutes circonstances,” in Pictet Essays, supra note 34, at 17.

45 Convention I Commentary, supra note 35, at 28–29.

46 See Convention IV Commentary, supra note 30, at 16; see also Convention I Commentary, supra note 35, at 26; Meron, Customary Law, supra note 18, at 27–30. For influential supportive literature, see especially Condorelli & Boisson de Chazournes, supra note 44; and Abi-Saab, supra note 34, at 270.

47 Common Article 1 was invoked as authority to convene a conference of the state parties on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territory. See GARes. ES-10/3 (July 30,1997). It was also invoked to recommend that state parties “take measures, on a national or regional level,” to encourage respect by Israel for the Fourth Geneva Convention. See GA Res. ES–10/2 (May 5, 1997); see also GA Res. ES–10/4 (Nov. 19, 1997); SC Res. 681, UN SCOR, 45th Sess., Res. & Dec, at 8, UN Doc. S/INF/46 (1990).

48 For the ICJ’s treatment of obligations erga omnes, see Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain) (New Application), 1970 ICJ Rep. 3, 32 (Feb. 5), discussed in Meron, Customary Law, supra note 18, at 188–201.

49 Geneva Convention No. I, supra note 35, Art. 46; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, Art. 47, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. II]; Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 26, Art. 13; Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 3, Art. 33.

50 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature Dec. 12, 1977, Arts. 51–56, 1125 UNTS 3 [hereinafter Protocol I].

51 George Aldrich, Compliance with International Humanitarian Law, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 282, May–June 1991, at 294, 302.

52 Id. at 301.

53 Id. at 302.

54 See Theodor Meron, The Time Has Come for the United States to Ratify Geneva Protocol I, 88 AJIL 678, 683-84 (1994).

55 Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, No. IT–95–16–T, Judgement, para. 530 (Jan. 14, 2000).

56 See Meron, supra note 28.

57 Kupreškić, paras. 527–31.

58 The steering committee of ICRC experts on customary rules of international humanitarian law took the position that the prohibition on reprisals against civilian objects and civilians in the power of the opposing belligerent is contentious and has not yet matured into customary law (Apr. 1998) (on file with author).

59 Emphasizing the absolute and nonsynallagmatic character of rules of humanitarian law, Cassese correctly rejects arguments based on tu quoque. Kupreškić, paras. 515–16.

60 Frits Kalshoven, Human Rights, the Law of Armed Conflicts, and Reprisals, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 121, Apr. 1971, at 183, 186.

61 See Jean de Preux, The Geneva Conventions and Reciprocity, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 244, Jan.–Feb. 1985, at 25, 26.

62 Convention i Commentary, supra note 35, at 28.

63 See, e.g., 1929 POW Convention, supra note 41, Arts. 42, 62, 64.

64 Convention i Commentary, supra note 35, at 82.

65 For the classic concept of jus cogens, see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Art. 53, 1155 UNTS 331.

66 Convention iv Commentary, supra note 30, at 71.

67 See Convention i Commentary, supra note 35, at 83.

68 Id. at 83 (quoting Report on the Work of the Preliminary Conference of National Red Cross Societies for the Study of the Conventions and of Various Problems Relative to the Red Cross (Geneva, July 26–August 3, 1946), at 71 (1947)).

69 Aldrich, supra note 17, at 855.

70 Id.

71 Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, 1928 PCIJ (ser. B) No. 15, at 17–18 (Advisory Opinion of Mar. 3); see also Rosalyn Higgins, Conceptual Thinking about the Individual, in International Law: a Contemporary Perspective 476 (Richard A. Falk, Friedrich Kratochwil, & Saul H. Mendlovitz eds., 1985); M. W. Janis, Individuals as Subjects of International Law, 17 Cornell Int’l L.J. 61 (1984). For a discussion of the rights and obligations of individuals in human rights and humanitarian law, see MERON, supra note 12, at 33–40.

72 See 1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 341 (Hersch Lauterpacht ed., 8th ed. 1955).

75 See Theodor Meron, International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities, 89 AJIL 554 (1995), reprinted in Meron, supra note 16, ch. 13.

74 See Convention iv Commentary, supra note 30, at 36; see also Richard R. Baxter, Jus in Bello Interno: The Present and Future Law, in Law and Civil War in the Modern World 518, 527–28 (John Norton Moore ed., 1974).

75 See Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Hague Convention No. IV, supra note 14, Art. 20.

76 Commentary on the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 541 (Jean de Preux ed., 1960) [hereinafter Convention III Commentary]; see also 1929 POW Convention, supra note 41, Art. 75.

77 Yoram Dinstein, The Release of Prisoners of War, in Pictet Essays, supra note 34, at 37, 43.

78 See id. at 44.

79 Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 26, Art. 118. See generally Christiane Shields Delessert, Release and Repatriation of Prisoners of War at the End of Active Hostilities (1977).

80 See Dinstein, supra note 77, at 44.

81 See id.

82 See J. P. Charmatz & Harold M. Witt, Repatriation of Prisoners of War and the 1949 Geneva Convention, 62 Yale L.J. 391, 401 (1953).

83 Convention III Commentary, supra note 76, at 542.

84 Jaro Mayda, The Korean Repatriation Problem and International Law, 47 AJIL 414, 433 (1953) (footnotes omitted); see also Charmatz & Witt, supra note 82, at 402–05.

85 Special Report by the Unified Command under the United States, Letter dated 18 October 1952 from the Chairman of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations, addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/2228, at 2-3 (1952).

86 Id. at 18–19.

87 Mayda, supra note 84, at 435.

88 Id. at 436 (citation omitted).

89 GA Res. 610, UN GAOR, 7th Sess., Supp. No. 20, at 3, para. 2, UN Doc. A/2361 (1952).

90 Agreement on Prisoners of War, June 8, 1953, 28 Dep’t St. Bull. 866 (1953), reprinted in 47 AJIL 180, 182 (Supp. 1953).

91 See generally Theodor Meron, Prisoners of War, Civilians and Diplomats in the Gulf Crisis, 85 AJIL 104 (1991).

92 John Quigley, Iran and Iraq and the Obligations to Release and Repatriate Prisoners of War After the Close of Hostilities, 5 Am. U.J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 73, 81 (1989) (citing ICRC communiqués); see also Report of the Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General on the situation of prisoners of war in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq, UN Doc. S/20147, annex, para. 78 (1988).

93 See Quigley, supra note 92, at 82.

94 See id. at 82; see also ICRC, 1991 Annual Report 112.

95 ICRC, 1989 Annual Report 87.

96 ICRC, 1991 Annual Report 100.

97 See id. at 102.

98 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dec. 14, 1995, Annex 1A, Art. IX, 35 ILM 75, 91 (1996).

99 Geneva Convention No. I, supra note 35, Art 12; Geneva Convention No. II, supra note 49, Art. 12; see also Geneva Convention No. IV, supranote 3, Art. 3, pt. II, Art. 70; Protocol I, supra note 50, Arts. 1 (4), 75; and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature Dec. 12, 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 [hereinafter Protocol II]. For discussion, see Meron, supra note 12, at 30–33.

100 Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT–94–1–A72, Appeal on Jurisdiction, para. 76 (Oct. 2, 1995), reprinted in 35 ILM 32 (1996). For a trenchant critique of this decision, see George Aldrich, Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 90 AJIL 64 (1996).

101 Tadić, supra note 100, para. 83; see Amicus Curiae Brief presented by the United States 26–36, Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT–94-1-T, Motion Hearing (July 25, 1995).

102 Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT–94–1–T, Opinion and Judgment, para. 607 (May 7, 1997).

103 See Theodor Meron, Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout, 92 AJIL 236 (1998), reprinted in Meron, supra note 16, ch. 16; see also Theodor Meron, War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law, 88 AJIL 78 (1994).

104 Convention IV Commentary, supra note 30, at 46.

105 Prosecutor v. Delalić, No. IT–96–21–T, Judgement, para. 263 (Nov. 16, 1998) (footnotes omitted).

106 Id., para. 265.

107 Id., para. 266.

108 Convention IV Commentary, supra note 30, at 51.

109 Delalić, supra note 105, paras. 271–73 (quoting id. at 21).

110 Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT–94–1–A, Judgement, paras. 160,162 (July 15,1999), reprinted in 38 ILM 1518 (1999).

111 Id., paras. 160, 162.

112 Id., para. 169.

113 Id., paras. 166, 168.

114 Article 1 of Protocol II, supra note 99, defines such conflicts as those “which take place in the territory of a [state] between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.”

115 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9*, reprinted in 37 ILM 999 (1998) [hereinafter ICC statute].

116 See Meron, supranote 16, at 309.

117 See Minimum Humanitarian Standards: Analytical Report of the Secretary-General Submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/21, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/87, para. 74 (1998).

118 Id., para. 79.

119 Applicability was contested, for example, in the contexts of the West Bank by Israel, of Kuwait by Iraq, and of East Timor by Indonesia.

120 George Aldrich, Human Rights and Armed Conflict: Conflicting Views, 67 ASIL PROC. 141, 142 (1973).

121 Richard R Baxter, Some Existing Problems of Humanitarian Law, in The Concept of International Armed Conflict: Further Outlook 1, 2 (Proceedings of the International Symposium on Humanitarian Law, Brussels, 1974).

122 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Instruction 5810.01, Implementation of the DOD Law of War Program (1996), quoted in Corn, When Does the Law of War Apply: Analysis of Department of Defense Policy on Application of the Law of War, Army Law., June 1998, at 17.

123 UN Secretary-General, Bulletin on the Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, reprinted in 38 ILM 1656 (1999).

124 See id. at 1.1. The regulations have been criticized by the United States for having been issued by the Secretary-General without adequate consultation with states. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Press Release USUN No. 81 (Oct. 20, 1999) (statement of Revius O. Ortique.Jr., in General Assembly’s Fourth Committee).

125 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature Apr. 10, 1981, 19 ILM 1523 (1980), Protocol [II] on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, May 3, 1996, 35 ILM 1206 (1996).

126 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, Sept. 18, 1997, 36 ILM 1507 (1997).

127 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, Apr. 10, 1972, 26 UST 583, 1015 UNTS 163.

128 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Jan. 13, 1993, S. Treaty Doc. No. 21, 103d Cong. (1993), 32 ILM 800 (1993).

129 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Mar. 26, 1999, Art. 22, 38 ILM 769 (1999).

130 Tadić supra note 100, para. 97.

131 Id.

132 See Minimum Humanitarian Standards, supra note 117, paras. 86–87.

133 Id.; see also Fundamental Standards of Humanity: Report of the Secretary-General Submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1998/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/92, paras. 23–34.

134 Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc. S/25704, para. 47 (1993), reprinted in 32 ILM 1163, 1173 (1993) [hereinafter Report of the Secretary-General].

135 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8, 1945, Art. 6(c), 59 Stat. 1544, 82 UNTS 279.

136 Allied Control Council Law No. 10, Dec. 20, 1945, Art. II (1)(c), Control Council for Germany, Official Gazette, Jan. 31, 1946, at 50, reprinted in U.S. Naval War College, Documents on Prisoners of War 304 (International Law Studies No. 60, Howard S. Levie ed., 1979).

137 GA Res. 95 (I), UN Doc. A/64/Add.1, at 188 (1947).

138 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9,1948, Art. 1, 78 UNTS 277.

139 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, Nov. 26, 1968, Art. 1, 754 UNTS 73.

140 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Nov. 30, 1973, Art. I, 1015 UNTS 243.

141 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, SC Res. 827, annex, Art. 5, UN SCOR, 48th Sess., Res. & Dec, at 29, UN Doc. S/INF/49 (1993), reprinted in 32 ILM 1192 (1993).

142 Report of the Secretary-General, supra note 134, para. 47 (footnote omitted).

143 Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT-94-1-T, Response on Jurisdiction at 54 (July 7, 1995).

144 Tadić, supra note 100, para. 141.

145 See Darryl Robinson, Defining “Crimes against Humanity” at the Rome Conference, 93 AJIL 43, 45–46 (1999); see also Fundamental Standards of Humanity, supra note 133, para. 12.

146 ICC statute, supra note 115, Art. 7.

147 See Diane F. Orentlicher, Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime, 100 Yale L.J. 2537 (1991). For the principal work on crimes against humanity, see M.Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law (1999), as well as his earlier writings on this subject.

148 ICC statute, supra note 115, Art. 7.

149 Id., Art. 7(2).

150 For a critique of this decision, see Theodor Meron, War Crimes Law Comes of Age, in Meron, supra note 16, at 296, 299 n.16.

151 See Robinson, supra note 145, at 46–47.

152 Tadić, supra note 110, para. 305.

153 ICC statute, supra note 115, Art. 7(1) (h).

154 Robinson, supra note 145, at 53.

155 See Meron, supra note 12, at 12–28.

156 Adam Roberts, Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967,84 AJIL 44, 70–74 (1990).

157 Nuclear Weapons, supra note 5, para. 25.

158 Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, supra note 4, at 104; see also UN GAOR, 37th Sess., Supp. No. 40, at 93, UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982) (general comments of the Human Rights Committee); Meron, supra note 12, at 24; Marc J. Bossuyt, Guide to the “travaux préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 116–25 (1987). See generally Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, supra, at 98–101.

159 Nuclear Weapons, supra note 5, para. 25.

160 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT–95–17/1–T, Judgment, Para. 183 (Dec. 10, 1998), reprinted in 38 ILM 317 (1999).

161 Delalić, supra note 105, para. 200.

162 Abella v. Argentina, supra note 36, para. 158 n. 1. This position was criticized as failing to distinguish between the substance of norms and their supervisory mechanisms. See Liesbeth Zegfeld, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: A Comment on the Tablada Case, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 324, Sept. 1998, at 505.

163 Humanitarian law contains some exceptions, however, based on imperative military reasons, or military necessity, or reasons of security (e.g., Arts. 49(2), 64(1), 78(1) of Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 3), as well as specific derogations with regard to particular persons (e.g., Art. 5 of id. and Art. 45(3) of Protocol I, supra note 50), derogations rather similar to limitation clauses under the Political Covenant.

164 GA Res. 2444, UN GAOR, 23d Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 50, UN Doc. A/7218, pmbl. (1969).

165 Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, supra note 37, paras. 23–31; Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, supra note 4, Annex I.

166 Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, supra note 4, para. 16.

167 Protection of Human Rights, 1975 Digest §6, at 222 (memorandum by Legal Adviser Monroe Leigh).

168 SC Res. 237, pmbl., UN SCOR, 28th Sess., Res. & Dec, at 5, UN Doc. S/INF/22/Rev.2 (1967).

169 SC Res. 1041 (Jan. 29, 1996); see also SC Res. 1059 (May 31, 1996), 1071 (Aug. 31, 1996), 1083 (Nov. 27, 1996).

170 UN Doc. S/PRST/1999/6, para. 2; see also id., para. 7.

171 SC Res. 1261 (Aug. 25, 1999); Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, June 17, 1999, 38 ILM 1207 (1999).

172 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 28 ILM 1448 (1989).

173 See Convention III Commentary, supra note 76, at 144–45.

174 Report of a Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to inquire into the situation of prisoners of war in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Iraq, UN Doc. S/16962, annex, para. 294 (1985).

175 Res. 954 (Jan. 29, 1991) on the Gulf Conflict, Eur. Parl. Ass., 42d Ordinary Sess., para. 5 (1991).

176 See Inter-Am. C.H.R. 512, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79, rev.1 (1991).

177 E.g., UN Commission on Human Rights [CHR] Res. 1991/67, UN ESCOR, Supp. No. 2, at 154, UN Doc. E/1991/22, E/CN.4/1991/91 (1991) (on Kuwait); CHR Res. 1995/91, UN ESCOR, Supp. No. 4, at 275, para. 2, UN Doc. E/1995/23, E/CN.4/1995/176 (1995) (on Rwanda); CHR Res. 1995/89, id. at 262, para. 10 (on Bosnia-Herzegovina).

178 Report on the Situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26, para. 12 (emphasis added).

179 See Daniel O’Donnell, Trends in the Application of International Humanitarian Law by United Nations Human Rights Mechanisms, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 324, Sept. 1998, at 481, 482–83 (citing UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/45, para. 113; UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/58, paras. 112–16). For the Geneva Protocol, see Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, June 17, 1925, 26 UST 571, 94 LNTS 95.

180 See O’Donnell, supra note 179, at 489 (citing UN Docs. E/CN.4/1994/48, para. 115; E/CN.4/1997/58, para. 27).

181 Id. at 485 (quoting UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1, para. 50).

182 See id. at 485–86.

183 See id. at 482.

184 Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report submitted by Special Rapporteur Bacre Waly Ndiaye, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/4, para. 493.

185 See O’Donnell, supra note 180, at 484. The mission was established by Security Council Resolution 693 (May 20, 1991). SC Res. 693, UN SCOR, 46th Sess., Res. & Dec, at 33, UN Doc. S/INF/47 (1991).

186 See First Report of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador, UN Doc. A/45/1055–S/23037, annex, paras. 17-19 (1991).

187 Id., paras. 50–52.

188 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights, Mar. 19, 1994, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, Annex I, §§I, IX, X.

189 Case 10.573, Salas v. United States, Inter-Am. C.H.R. 312, 317, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.85, doc. 9 rev., Background, para. 25 (1993).

190 Id., Analysis, para. 6.

191 Abella v. Argentina, supra note 36, para. 148.

192 See id., paras. 154–56.

193 Id., para. 161.

194 Nuclear Weapons, supra note 5, para. 25.

195 See, e.g., Report of the Director of the United Nations Mission for the Verification of human rights and of compliance with the commitments of the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala, UN Doc. A/49/856, paras. 133–37 (1995).

196 See Ergi v. Turkey, 1998–IV Eur. Ct. H.R., paras. 79, 81, 86; see also McCann v. United Kingdom, 324 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), paras. 194, 200, 213 (1995).

197 See Case 11.010, Feldman v. Colombia, Inter-Am. C.H.R. 57, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91, doc. 7 (1995).

198 Neira-Alegría v. Peru, 1995 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Rep. (ser. C) No. 20, paras. 74–76.

199 See Aisling Reidy, The Approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to International Humanitarian Law, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 324, Sept. 1998, at 513, 516 n.11.

200 Cyprus v. Turkey, App. Nos. 6780/74, 6950/75, 4 Eur. H.R. Rep. 482, para. 313 (1982) (1976 Commission report).

201 Id., para. 202.

202 See Reidy, supra note 199, at 518.

203 Cyprus v. Turkey, supra note 200.

204 Chrysostomos & Papachrysostomos v. Turkey, App. Nos. 15299/89, 15300/89,86 Eur. Comm’n Dec. & Rep. 4, para. 96 (1993) (Commission report).

205 Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), para. 62 (1995).

206 Id., para. 57.

207 See Theodor Meron, Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties, 89 AJIL 78 (1995).

208 Françoise Hampson, Using International Human Rights Machinery to Enforce the International Law of Armed Conflicts, 31 Revue de droit militaire et de droitde la guerre 119, 122 (1992).

209 Christopher Greenwood, International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War, Preliminary Report for the Centennial Commemoration of the First Hague Peace Conference 1899, at 60–61 (June 1998) (on file with author).

210 Minimum Humanitarian Standards, supra note 117, para. 8.

211 Id., para. 9.

212 See Theodor Meron, On the Inadequate Reach of Humanitarian and Human Rights Law and the Need for a New Instrument, 77 AJIL 589 (1983); see also Theodor Meron, Towards a Humanitarian Declaration on Internal Strife, 78 AJIL 859 (1984); Theodor Meron, Draft Model Declaration on Internal Strife, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 262, Jan.–Feb. 1988, at 59; Meron, supra note 12; Theodor Meron & Allan Rosas, A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, 85 AJIL 375 (1991); Asbjørn Eide, Allan Rosas, & Theodor Meron, Combating Lawlessness in Gray Zone Conflicts through Minimum Humanitarian Standards, 89 AJIL 215 (1995).

213 See Minimum Humanitarian Standards, supra note 117; see also Fundamental Standards of Humanity, supra note 133; David Petrasek, Moving Forward on the Development of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, 92 AJIL 557 (1998).

214 Meron & Rosas, supra note 212, at 378 (Art. 2).

215 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act, Aug. 1, 1975, 73 Dep’t St. Bull. 323 (1975), reprinted in 14 ILM 1292 (1975).

216 National Intelligence Council, Global Humanitarian Emergencies: Trends and Projections, 1999–2000, at 12 (1999).

217 Id. at 13.

218 Id. at 17.

219 George Aldrich, Yugoslavia’s Television Studios as Military Objectives, 1 Int’l L.F. 149, 149–50 (1999).

220 Id. at 150.

221 U.S. Dep’t of State, Daily Press Briefing, Nov. 8, 1999 (on file with author).

222 Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/957, para. 2.

223 Id., para. 5.

224 See Editorial Comments: NATO’s Kosovo Intervention, 93 AJIL 824 (1999).